Posted on 02/03/2002 9:07:58 AM PST by Sabertooth
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Here's where I see the crux of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, and most appear to miss it: |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks... at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Creationists say "God."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation."
|
|||
There is no such thing as "negative entropy" in thermodynamics; entropy is an absolute metric of order. I strongly suggest you look up the "Gibb's Free Energy Equation" and study it carefully. After you are done studying it, you can come back and explain to me how biology violates thermodynamics. The mathematics is relatively simple, so you shouldn't have a problem. The Gibb's equation defines the relationship between enthalpy and entropy, and also makes it bloody obvious how reductions in entropy can occur, like they do in biological systems. There are millions of examples of local entropy reversal in non-living systems as well; it is not a special feature of biology.
If you don't understand Gibb's equation, you don't understand thermodynamics. Period.
Entropy is the tendency for reactive systems to reach equillibrium and, hence, become stable and intert.
This is an incorrect definition of entropy. If you are using this as the definition, it is no surprise that your conclusions are wrong. Don't make up definitions, use the ones provided by the people who developed the mathematics. The nature of entropy is a complex subject in its own right and not something you can learn in two sentences written at a fifth grade reading level. Do yourself a favor and stop using the "made-for-people-who-don't-care-to-really-understand" definition.
Negative entropy is the amazing "life force" that resists entropy and requires, among other things, exogenous energy supply and the ability to use it. Once either one gives way...then the laws of thermodynamics do most certainly apply.
If you don't know that your magical "life force" is an obvious consequence of THE equation of thermodynamics, then you don't know diddly squat about thermodynamics. Let me repeat: Learn about the Gibb's Free Energy equation. If you don't understand that (and you clearly don't), then you are inadequately informed on thermodynamics. It is one of the fundamental equations, and anyone with first year algebra can show why it allows the spontaneous existence of biological systems.
I've read where some of the newer, long-acting forms of Thorazine result in a more constant cerebral level of the active ingedient.
Just one, final, parting shot:
I'll show you that we're both correct.
Profoundity ... routundity ... deity!
Where is your example that I made such a claim?
Read the thread, my posts are easy to spot.
Well, I have treaded my way all the way back to the beginning, and I find only variations of the same refrain. Which, to my untutored eye, is just a painfully reiterated implicit suggestion that mutation is, in some manner, directed, since we cannot prove it is "random" (whatever one may take the word to mean), although you are apparenly too shy to say so directly--as you seem to be at pains not to want to quite own this contention.
You have then made quite a production out of repeating over and over that there isn't sound evidence that it ISN'T directed. Which, indeed, always MAY be the case, no matter how much evidence we gather for natural causes. God or little green men, or a secret cabal of RNA may be required to nursemaid every little sperm into every little egg, and no one can ever disprove this contention.
And while this is a fine amusement, it does not meaningfully attack such naturalistic explanations as we have found, and made use of, despite our egregeous lack of perfect knowledge.
There's no law saying entropy must always flow downhill, anymore than the law of gravity prevents oceans from having waves. Local entropy can flow backwards away from disorder. Only total entropy is a one way ticket.
You're Irish aren't you?
I'd like to suggest that, like many who argue about this issue, you are struggling with a false picture about speciation.
Fixed speciation, with long-fangled latinate names is a manifestation of the zoologist's desire to organize things into neat little boxes. We do not, in fact, think that species suddenly give rise to each other in a single generation, through a single remarkable event that needs an extra-ordinary explanation. Fixed species are just a set of still photo slices of an everchanging phenomena. And in fact, we have current examples of the sliding speciation scale. Such as Herring Gulls. Pick any 3 points on the continuous scale that species with names represent a still-life of, and you could get relative speciation unrelated to the naming conventions.
That is, A could mate successfully with B, but not with C, and C with B, but not with A. And none of this may be relevant to actual named species on the scale.
No great leaps required here, so speculation about odds against--or lack of capacity to determine odds against--is off-subject.
Aren't we all?
Evolutionists must sidestep the Laws of Thermodynamics in order to possess the faith that they do in their fantasy. Hence it does not suprise me that you fail to make the connection of energy physics to the biological model.
The Laws of thermodynamics govern the fate of matter and energy in the Universe itself, and while inconvenient to the philosophical evolutionist such as yourself, the Laws will not take a back seat to accommodate those who fail to grasp the concept.
When did life on Earth start, you ask. Tell you what, I'll answer question your, if you'll answer mine:
When does life begin?
Not moving the goalposts at all. For man to have descended from a one celled creature as evolutionists claim happened you need macro-evolution - the development of new abilities, new systems, new genes. This is what evolutionists have to prove and have not.
What evolutionists call speciation is not due to new genes or new abilities, these worms, flies, moths etc. that they claim "prove" evolution are still worms, flies, and moths. They may have different coloring, different sizes, etc. but so do humans and all species. Every species has many different but similar genes which make each individual unique. That is why we can "breed" dogs, other animals and plants and get some characteristics that may be desired. This creates nothing new, it is just selection of characteristics, it is not evolution.
Nope. A chihuahua cannot physically mate with a great dane, yet both are of the same species. To prove evolution (which you cannot) you have to prove the creation of new characteristics. This no evolutionist has done. The worm is still a worm, they fruitflies are still fruitflies, the moths are still moths. This is selection, not evolution. Two very different things. For us to have developed from an amoeba to a human thousands of new genes, new biological systems, new organs had to be developed. The evolutionists cannot give proof of any such thing ever having happened.
The term species is very loosely used by evolutionists. Care to define it?
Evolution is not about species anyways. It is about new added characteristics to a species's genome. Otherwise man could have never evolved from an amoeba or a bacterium or some such simple creature as evolutionists constantly claim to have occurred but are totally unable to give any proof of.
BTW - note that the definition has to include proof for completely dead species also since evolutionists also love to classify things by a few bones found here and there.
Not so fast buddy! The dispute between evolutinists and creationists is not whether there are different species - both sides acknowledge that. The dispute is over how those species arose. Existence does not prove causation which is what this debate is about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
